lanthimos's mastery of tone and immersive absurdism is as potent as ever here, but i found the whole thing to be hollow posturing and, when all was said and done, really goofy. compares unfavorably to haneke in its forcible, forced, for-the-sake-of-it provocations and deliberate obtuseness. it gets its hooks in deep but does next to nothing passed that.

barry keoghan gives one of the most disturbing performances i've ever seen though, and for that alone i'd recommend seeing this. just curb your expectations.

I don't agree with the interpretation that Martin isn't real, but I like this guy's articulation of what he symbolizes:

Quote from: Rututu

This is just my personal interpretation of the film, but I thought that Martin isn't a real person, and the whole story is very much a metaphor.

Martin represents the repressed guilt, alcoholism and emotional problems of the father. These problems occupy the father, making him neglect his children. This is shown by the father spending time with Martin instead of his family.

In the end, the fathers emotional problems end up "paralyzing" the children. They lose the will to eat, because they're living in an unhealthy home. The father cant rid himself of his problems (Martin) before something really bad happens and opens his eyes.

The whole love angle between Martin and Kim represents how girls with "dad issues" can act out sexually and look for a replacement for their absentee father in other men. The end shows us that Kim still has a risk of falling for a man for the wrong reasons. She hungrily eats the fries that Martin loves the most.

and this capsule review

Quote from: Brian Tellerico

A man who plays god meets a boy who plays devil.

The lighting in Sacred Deer is fucking gorgeous. It's like reverse key lighting on everything -- even the bushes outside the house! Like they waited for the fucking sun to move so that the interior/exterior lighting schemes matched. Unbelievable. I love this movie.

Really wanted to like this, seeing as the Lanthimos had me deep on the hook for about the first hour, but it quickly came apart in its randomness and monotony. The directing is stellar, as is the ambiance and performances, especially Kidman and Keoghan, but the story could not sustain its premise. It just never went beyond the paralysis incident or did anything interesting with it, just a lot of weird for the sake of being weird bits that are thrown yet never stick. Script needed some major development. Had high hoped for Sacred Deer, but ultimately a letdown.

Strangely enough, I'd still recommend it to those into more diverse films, if only for the sheer eeriness of Keoghan's role and the masterful direction.

Continuing to think about this, and about both your reactions. It’s sort of similar to The Lobster in form, the more I do.

SPOILERS

In The Lobster, romantic interactions between people are reduced to hilariously simple schematics. The subtext of what people communicate is made text, to comedic effect (“we’re compatible because we find each other physically attractive, but we’re not too attractive to be out of each other’s leagues because we also have similar physical weaknesses…getting nosebleeds”). In the second half, those schematics are eschewed for a dramatization of what occurs when people who can’t find a compatible partner escape the compound.

Most times I’ve rewatched the The Lobster, I enjoy the first half more than the second, maybe just because it’s funny, but also because it’s really interesting to me how Yorgos communicates the obvious in non-obvious terms. Or maybe makes the so-obvious-it’s-invisible even more obvious, through them. I think he’s doing something similar, here, but to terrifying effect, on a more subconscious kick-you-in-the-gut level, and that the lack of a really big turn in Sacred Deer's third act is for thematically sound reasons.

In The Killing of a Sacred Deer, the familial damage that occurs as a result of Dr. Murphy’s alcoholism, and of his denial of his alcoholism, is transmuted into allergorical, supernatural happenings the same way The Lobster transmutes romantic interactions into simple schematics, and Dr. Murphy is brought to some awareness of the suffering he's causing his family by way of his interactions with Martin. It’s a partial journey from darkness up into light.

This movie has a similar ticking time bomb as The Lobster (30 days until you’re turned into an animal / soon you’ll be paralyzed), but the dramatic evolution that occurs towards the end of The Lobster isn’t there because Sacred Deer has a far more tragic end. In the former, Colin Farrell manages to escape his fate — it’s why the thriller-like third act in the forest exists — whereas here, Dr. Murphy's hubris and denial perpetuates. He knows Martin is a problem, but never recognizes why. His blaming and scapegoating persists ("An anesthesiologist can kill a patient, but a surgeon never does..."), so the lack of plot progression works, in my view. Ironically, in kidnapping Martin, Dr. Murphy is going after the symptom, not cause, of ailment, betraying the medical prowess he insists he has.

Well, the film is a real slog from the time of paralyzation to the finish line. I actually like that Yargos never bothers to explain how Martin is able to do what he does, makes it creepier, but I didn't feel there was any development on Farrell's part that shows his trying to remedy the situation other than kidnapping Martin, who is too fleshed out a character to be "not real". Once the paralysis sets in, all the characters are like "Martin, please make it stop", and he's just like, "no", and that's basically it. It would have been nice if Martin got in their head a little more, or elaborated a bit on his logic for executing this plot. And it was a drag that things of interest never went anywhere, like Martin delusionally insisting his mom has a crush on Farrell or the two gifting each other. But like I said it's just thrown in there for weirdness' sake, like Kidman's handjob.

SPOIER OF THE ENDING FOLLOWS

The whole movie felt random, just like the ending, blindly spinning around and busting a shot, then taking off the ski mask to see who's hit.

END SPOILER

Can't compare it, but I got about halfway through The Lobster last night and really liked what I saw; look forward to finishing it.

At the end of the movie, where they all are sitting in the diner, the song that's being played is written by Bach. It's the first part of St. John's Passion, which tells the story of the crucifixion of Jesus from the perspective of the Gospel of John. What's uniquely important in my opinion, is the lyrics they are singing and the translation.

"Lord, Lord, Lord, Thou our Master, Thou our Master, Thou whose name in every land is honored, is honored everywhere."

These repeat in various ways, but that is the translation of the original German lyrics that are used in the movie. However, it gets more interesting if your consider what follows this portion. Firstly comes these lyrics:

"Show us in this, Thy Passion's hour (your death), how Thou, the very Son of God, for endless time, art now become, though brought so low, forever glorified."

Then the rest of the full piece follows the crucifixion of Jesus. I think bringing in the biblical context into the entire movie can put an interesting perspective to it. The sin of one man caused pain for all, and only by the sacrifice of a son were things made right. The use of the piece also solidifies that Martin is their master and lord. He is in charge now.

This fully lived up to my expectations. And I agree, it's a noticeable step up visually. Hard to say I loved it, if you know what I mean, but I did love it.

SPOILERS

Yorgos is so masterful here at those gut-punch reveals. None of them are straightforward, but you still immediately understand. Skipping or rearranging steps of exposition just throws you off balance all the more. Like when Colin Farrell started spinning around in the living room, my jaw dropped, and I felt physically sick.

Midway through, I really started thinking about who should die and made myself choose. I actually chose the boy. That's what this movie does to you.

I have to say I don't get the aforementioned criticisms. There was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary here for a Yorgos film. You just have to sign on for it. And the pace was just fine, I thought.

There's a bit of a hint included about how to interpret the movie. When Martin takes a bite out of his arm, he says, "Do you understand? It's metaphorical. My example. It's a metaphor. I mean it's, uhh, symbolic." Obviously the interpretations Wilder brought up are completely within reason, including the biblical ones.

As with all of Yorgos's work, the unrealness of the dialogue delivery and the plot both are the clearest indication that the film should not be viewed literally.

Edit:

It's funny how radically different Raffey Cassidy is in real life. Also some behind-the-scenes insights: